Everyone is adding AI to their chain right now. It’s in the roadmap, the pitch deck, the demo. And yet, most of it feels strangely thin. Like something important is happening somewhere else, and the chain is just watching it happen.
What bothered me wasn’t the ambition. It was the architecture. Most blockchains were designed to record events, not to interpret them. They’re very good at remembering what happened and very bad at understanding what it means. So when AI gets “integrated,” it usually lives off-chain, sending conclusions back to a system that can verify outcomes but not reasoning.
Vanar feels different because it starts from a quieter assumption: that intelligent computation is not an add-on but a native workload. On the surface, that shows up as support for AI agents and data-heavy execution. Underneath, it’s about treating on-chain data as something meant to be processed, summarized, and reused—not just stored and exported.
That design choice matters. It allows context to accumulate on-chain. It lets systems learn patterns instead of constantly outsourcing insight. There are real risks here—complexity, determinism, cost—and it’s still early. But early signs suggest a divide forming.
Some chains add AI. Very few were designed for it.